Communication protocols rely on various routing techniques to transfer data between communication endpoints on a communication network. Communication or network protocols and the corresponding routing strategies are typically selected in view of such factors as knowledge of network topology, size of the network, type of medium used as a signal carrier, security and reliability requirements, tolerable transmission delays, and types of devices forming the network. Due to a large number of such factors, a typical routing technique meets some of the design objectives at the expense of the others. For example, a certain routing technique may provide a high level of reliability in data delivery but may also require a relatively high overhead. Thus, while there are many known approaches to routing and many protocols compatible with these routing methods, there remain communication networks with the specific requirements that are not fully satisfied by any of the available routing methods and protocols. Moreover, as new types of communication networks, with the increasing demands for efficiency, throughput, and reliability, emerge in various industrial and commercial applications, the architects and developers frequently encounter new problems which are not easily addressed by the existing protocols and the associated routing techniques.
Generally speaking, a communication network includes nodes which are the senders and recipients of data sent over communication paths (either hardwired or wireless communication paths) connecting the nodes. Additionally, communication networks typically include dedicated routers responsible for directing traffic between nodes, and, optionally, include dedicated devices responsible for configuring and managing the network. Some or all of the nodes may be also adapted to function as routers so as to direct traffic sent between other network devices. Network devices may be inter-connected in a wired or wireless manner, and network devices may have different routing and transfer capabilities than certain nodes within the network. For example, dedicated routers may be capable of high volume transmissions while some nodes may only be capable of sending and receiving relatively little traffic over the same period of time. Additionally, the connections between nodes on a network may have different throughput capabilities and different attenuation characteristics. A fiber-optic cable, for example, may be capable of providing a bandwidth several orders of magnitude higher than a wireless link because of the difference in the inherent physical limitations of the medium.
In order for a node to send data to another node on a typical network, either the complete path from the source to the destination or the immediately relevant part of the path must be known. For example, the World Wide Web (WWW) allows pairs of computer hosts to communicate over large distances without either host knowing the complete path prior to sending the information. Instead, hosts are configured with the information about their assigned gateways and dedicated routers. In particular, the Internet Protocol (IP) provides network layer connectivity to the WWW. The EP defines a sub-protocol known as Address Resolution Protocol (ARP) which provides a local table at each host specifying the routing rules. Thus, a typical host connected to the WWW or a similar Wide Area Network (WAN) may know to route all packets with the predefined addresses matching a pre-configured pattern to host A and route the rest of the packets to host B. Similarly, the intermediate hosts forwarding the packets, or “hops,” also execute partial routing decisions and typically direct data in the general direction of the destination.
In most network protocols, most or all network devices are assigned sufficiently unique addresses to enable hosts to exchange information in an unambiguous manner. At least in case of unicast (one-to-one) transmissions, the destination address must be specified at the source. For this reason, network protocols typically define a rigid addressing scheme. As one of ordinary skill in the art will recognize, modifying or expanding addressing schemes is a complicated and expensive process. For example, the transition from version 4 of the IP protocol (IPv4) to version 6 (IPv6) requires significant updates to much of the infrastructure supporting IPv4. On the other hand, defining addressing schemes with large capability for small networks creates an unnecessary overhead. Thus, a network protocol ideally suited for a particular application offers a sufficient number of possible addresses without an excessive overhead in data transmission.
In short, a number of factor influence the implementation of particular protocols in particular industries. In the process control industry, it is known to use standardized communication protocols to enable devices made by different manufacturers to communicate with one another in an easy to use and implement manner. One such well known communication standard used in the process control industry is the Highway Addressable Remote Transmitter (HART) Communication Foundation protocol, referred to generally as the HART® protocol. Generally speaking, the HART® protocol supports a combined digital and analog signal on a dedicated wire or set of wires, in which on-line process signals (such as control signals, sensor measurements, etc.) are provided as an analog current signal (e.g., ranging from 4 to 20 milliamps) and in which other signals, such as device data, requests for device data, configuration data, alarm and event data, etc., are provided as digital signals superimposed or multiplexed onto the same wire or set of wires as the analog signal. However, the HART protocol currently requires the use of dedicated, hardwired communication lines, resulting in significant wiring needs within a process plant.
There has been a move, in the past number of years, to incorporate wireless technology into various industries including, in some limited manners, the process control industry. However, there are significant hurdles in the process control industry that limit the full scale incorporation, acceptance and use of wireless technology. In particular, the process control industry requires a completely reliable process control network because loss of signals can result in the loss of control of a plant, leading to catastrophic consequences, including explosions, the release of deadly chemicals or gases, etc. For example, Tapperson et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,236,334 discloses the use of a wireless communications in the process control industry as a secondary or backup communication path or for use in sending non-critical or redundant communication signals. Moreover, there have been many advances in the use of wireless communication systems in general that may be applicable to the process control industry, but which have not yet been applied to the process control industry in a manner that allows or provides a reliable, and in some instances completely wireless, communication network within a process plant. U.S. Patent Application Publication Numbers 2005/0213612, 2006/0029060 and 2006/0029061 for example disclose various aspects of wireless communication technology related to a general wireless communication system.
Similar to wired communications, wireless communication protocols are expected to provide efficient, reliable and secure methods of exchanging information. Of course, much of the methodology developed to address these concerns on wired networks does not apply to wireless communications because of the shared and open nature of the medium. Further, in addition to the typical objectives behind a wired communication protocol, wireless protocols face other requirements with respect to the issues of interference and co-existence of several networks that use the same part of the radio frequency spectrum. Moreover, some wireless networks operate in the part of the spectrum that is unlicensed, or open to the public. Therefore, protocols servicing such networks must be capable of detecting and resolving issues related to frequency (channel) contention, radio resource sharing and negotiation, etc.
In the process control industry, developers of wireless communication protocols face additional challenges, such as achieving backward compatibility with wired devices, supporting previous wired versions of a protocol, providing transition services to devices retrofitted with wireless communicators, and providing routing techniques which can ensure both reliability and efficiency. Meanwhile, there remains a wide number of process control applications in which there are few, if any, in-place measurements. Currently these applications rely on observed measurements (e.g. water level is rising) or inspection (e.g. period maintenance of air conditioning unit, pump, fan, etc) to discover abnormal situations. In order to take action, operators frequently require face-to-face discussions. Many of these applications could be greatly simplified if measurement and control devices were utilized. However, current measurement devices usually require power, communications infrastructure, configuration, and support infrastructure which simply is not available.
In yet another aspect, the process control industry requires that the communication protocol servicing a particular process control network be able to accommodate field devices with different data transmission requirements, priorities, and power capabilities. In particular, some process control systems may include measurement devices that frequently (such as several times per second) report measurements to a centralized controller or to another field device. Meanwhile, another device in the same system may report measurements, alarms, or other data only once per hour. However, both devices may require that the respective measurement reports propagate to a destination host, such as a controller, a workstation, or a peer field device, with as little overhead in time and bandwidth as possible.